Court upholds child molester's no-contact condition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a man convicted of two child molesting counts didn’t have his constitutional rights violated because no double jeopardy violation occurred, and the trial judge’s probation condition that he have no contact with anyone younger than 18 is constitutional.

The case involves allegations that Ronald Rexroat molested the daughter of his friends in 2009. The girl told her mom that he touched her on three separate occasions, and the mom reported the allegations to the Indiana Department of Child Services. The state in 2010 charged Rexroat with two Class C felonies, which were two identically worded counts. A jury found him guilty of both, and the trial court sentenced him to six years on each count to be served concurrently, with three years suspended to probation. One of the probation conditions was that Rexroat have no face-to-face, telephonic, electronic or indirect contact with anyone under age 18 unless first approved.

Rexroat appealed his sentence on double jeopardy grounds and also the probation condition that he alleged was overbroad and a violation of his First Amendment rights.

In Ronald Rexroat v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1107-CR-594, the Court of Appeals found that Rexroat failed to show any double jeopardy violation under the Indiana or U.S. constitutions. Specifically, the “same elements” test adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1932 doesn’t apply here. As for the state claim, the Indiana Supreme Court in 1999 held that that the second charge must be for the same, identical act and crime as the first offense and that’s not what happened here. The two counts arose from two separate incidents, and so the statutory elements test does not apply.

Turning to the probation condition claim, the appellate panel disagreed that Rexroat’s constitutional rights have been violated. The court looked to its Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), ruling that adopted a three-prong test to determine whether a probation condition requiring the defendant to avoid all contact with minors was unduly intrusive on constitutional rights.

Rexroat ignored the Smith holding, the court wrote, and he hasn’t shown the probation condition regarding contact with minors is unconstitutional.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?